[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YbDUnkmQP3nxd5bv@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2021 16:51:58 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
rientjes@...gle.com, hannes@...xchg.org, guro@...com,
riel@...riel.com, minchan@...nel.org, kirill@...temov.name,
aarcange@...hat.com, christian@...uner.io, hch@...radead.org,
oleg@...hat.com, david@...hat.com, jannh@...gle.com,
shakeelb@...gle.com, luto@...nel.org, christian.brauner@...ntu.com,
fweimer@...hat.com, jengelh@...i.de, timmurray@...gle.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mm: protect free_pgtables with mmap_lock write
lock in exit_mmap
On Wed 08-12-21 15:01:24, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 03:08:19PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > /**
> > > > * @close: Called when the VMA is being removed from the MM.
> > > > * Context: Caller holds mmap_lock.
> >
> > BTW, is the caller always required to hold mmap_lock for write or it
> > *might* hold it?
>
> __do_munmap() might hold it for read, thanks to:
>
> if (downgrade)
> mmap_write_downgrade(mm);
>
> Should probably say:
>
> * Context: User context. May sleep. Caller holds mmap_lock.
>
> I don't think we should burden the implementor of the vm_ops with the
> knowledge that the VM chooses to not hold the mmap_lock under certain
> circumstances when it doesn't matter whether it's holding the mmap_lock
> or not.
If we document it like that some code might depend on that lock to be
held. I think we only want to document that the holder itself is not
allowed to take mmap sem or a depending lock.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists